DSLRUsers.com

I really love how my D70 connects to my PC with a USB cable. I can completely control the camera from the Capture software. This is what I always dreamed of! Remotely fire the shutter and open the picture directly in Photoshop...

But ok, I got used to it and now I want more. Now I want it to work even without a cable. Wireless. So I'm looking for a generic wireless USB solution, but I can't find it. I'm not talking about a USB wireless network adaptor, but just a wireless USB to USB connection that will replace the USB cable. Does it even exist?

In my search I've found this USB wirelessnetwork solution: http://nikonimaging.com/global/technology/scene/11/ But that's not exactly what I want and it doesn't fit my D70. I don't care if it fits on the camera, I can stick a separate transmitter to my tripod with velcro if I need to.

Any ideas?

Being a D2 series owner, i have the option of wireless, but it requires another expensive add-on that i may never use. Maybe when i set up a studio i may find it useful.

My advice is to upgrade to a D2x or D2hs. Altough a couple of the new Nikon point and shoots are now wireless capable. (Not sure which models)

Hi Steve,

I was more like looking for a solution below AU$ 100, so about the upgrade... afraid not!

ElRonno wrote:Hi Steve,

I was more like looking for a solution below AU$ 100, so about the upgrade... afraid not!

AU$100.00 what can you buy with it?

- A dinner for one.
or
- 1Gb Cf card
or
- 1.1/2 tank of petrol on the medium size car.
or
- 10 bottles of wine (under the premium class)

It can be done, - I've done it - but not in the way that you're suggesting.

The first problem is that, to connect to the USB connector on the D70, you need a device with USB Host functionality.

That's mostly a PC, but some PPCs have this too.

Then you need controlling software on the device.

Good luck in trying to find a USB host device with dedicated software to control the D70 for under $1000, let alone the $100 you're suggesting.

The way that you can get a wirelss download to work is to start with a PPC that has USB host embedded in it. The PPC also needs to have either Bluetooth, and /or WiFi installed. WiFi is preferred, because the speed of wireless transmission under BT is woeful.


To get it happenning, set up a wireless connection between your PPC and a notebook or laptop PC.

Then, using the host facility on your PPC, establish a USB conenction to your camera. You should be able to browse to the camera through the PPC Explorer, and see the image foders as though they're just a logical volume attached to the PPC.

Similarly, you should be able to see folders on your connected PC.

You then simply arrange for a process that copies the files from the camera to the PC. To automate the process, I'd probably writea small FTP client that compares A with B, and synchs two nominated folders.

And Thanh's implied suggestion that you buy a 1GB would be a far better investment of your time and money.

In fact, for less than the cost of a PPC, you can but an 8GB CF card.

You correctly surmise that this is more trouble than it's worth.

Thanks for your cynical approach

Hey, if I can get this device for less than AU$100 (new!): [Edit: Please see my note below after waking up]



Then it should be possible to get what I want for that same amount too.

I think it shouldn't be so complicated Gary. I'm not thinking about a networking solution with FTP and special software and so on. Just a dedicated transmitter to replace the USB cable. The D70 or Nikon Capture shouldn't even be aware that it's not a USB cable connection but a wireless USB connection.

Maybe via radio waves, maybe even infra red. If you can buy wireless mice, keyboards, headphones, videocamera's and so on, why can't you buy a generic wireless USB 'cable' that one can use for printers, scanners, camera's, memory sticks and so on?

The first one is only for D2 series camera, and this option is not less than AU$100.00.

Ok, I admit, I may have been sleeping, € 58.00 = AU$ 93.33 but as I read the small text that goes with the picture that price is only for the antenna that plugs into the device! Ok, so forget about that example then. (I'm making a fool of myself here )

Still I think a generic USB solution must be possible. If you can buy generic wireless video signal links that plug into any tv set and so on, it should be possible with USB too.

ElRonno wrote:Thanks for your cynical approach

No, I'm not being cynical. Please reread my message. I've actually done this, and I demonstrated it at a minimeet in 2004.

I'm telling you exactly how it is, and how it works, what and where the drawbacks are, and how to make it more effective.

Hey, if I can get this device for less than AU$100 (new!):

Thanh may be able to provide more accurate data, but the W units for the D2 series, such as you're showing here, will be priced closer to the Au$1K mark than to the Au$100 mark.

Again, that's not cynicism, it's how it is.

I think it shouldn't be so complicated Gary. I'm not thinking about a networking solution with FTP and special software and so on.

And with respect, you'd be wrong.

At the very least, you need some form of software that can talk to the camera. That might be firmware that can be embedded within the device, an extension to the operating system (like the file manager in Windows and Windows CE), a custom solution, or some combination of the above, but without something that talks the language that the camera understands, how do you propose that the communications between the THREE devices will happen?

My understanding of the device that you have pictured here is that it includes an embedded FTP client that needs to be configured to enable its network connection, and then configured to set up the downloads to the host, on the network.

None of this can happen by accident, and the underlying technology for this is still very much in its infancy: the interface for Nikon's cheap wireless PHDs (Au$700) has been critisised as kludgy and overly complex, and yet these have been designed for the snapshot photographers.

Just a dedicated transmitter to replace the USB cable. The D70 or Nikon Capture shouldn't even be aware that it's not a USB cable connection but a wireless USB connection.

But that's exactly the point: the connection hardware needs to be able to emulate, in some way, the simplicity of the cable.

The cable connects the PC, which, through extensions to the OS, knows how to handle the interface presented through the cable by the camera to the PC.

The camera is expecting to see a USB host at its connection.

No matter how you want to do this, some fairly complex software needs to come into play, in order to pretend that there's a USB cable where, in fact, there is none.

Take away the cable, and you need to have a device that can suck the camera data into a wireless connection and present the same interface to the PC as the camera, in native mode, presents.

Putting it another way, by removing the cable, you're removing the controlling mechanism that the PC exerts over the camera, and that needs to be, if not replaced, at least translated so that it can work over a wireless connection, and again, that still, and always, requires configuration.

Maybe via radio waves, maybe even infra red. If you can buy wireless mice, keyboards, headphones, videocamera's and so on, why can't you buy a generic wireless USB 'cable' that one can use for printers, scanners, camera's, memory sticks and so on?

Keyboards, mouses, headphones, etc use dedicated wireless that only works over a very short distance, and they're also very cheap devices, with minimal data trransfer requirements. You're trnsmitting data in quantities of a few bytes at a time, and at very low speeds. You don't notice the low speed because you're only transmitting such small amounts of data.

How big is the file size of the image that your camera makes?

Even at BT speeds, it takes an inordinately long time to transmit just one image to a pc.

And remember that the D70, in both models, is USB1.

Read that as slowwwwwwwwwwwww.

Which video camera feature wireless image transmission? I know of exactly zero, but would be perfectly happy for you to update our knowledge in this.

And infared will be even slower than BT. It's the nature of the beast.

ElRonno wrote:Still I think a generic USB solution must be possible. If you can buy generic wireless video signal links that plug into any tv set and so on, it should be possible with USB too.

No. The nature of the data is very different.

In the case of sending something from a tv set, you're taking a simple, common, unmodulated tv signal and converting it using a small radio (tv) transmitter.

The signal is dumb, and the communicatrion is only travelling in one direction.

For a camera, you are using two way digital communication, and you need to monitor the whole process: if you get a droput while sending the ads that your local tv station is transmitting from your VCR into your bedroom, who cares?

See how blase you remain when a few thousand bytes of your image get lost while transmitting the image from your camera t your pc. You really don't care, do you, because you still have 6 million other bytes to play with, right?



The two process are only similar in that they both use radio waves as the transmission medium. The nature of what you're doing, and what you're sending, is like comparing a bicycle to an ocean liner. They're both means of transport, but I don't know that I'd be riding a bicyle from Sydney to Auckland.

I voted "Yes, absolutely!", but that's assuming tethered mode works wirelessly, too (kind of a contradiction in terms, really). Wireless remote control would be waaay cool.

If the wireless link is only good for transferring images, then I guess I'll stick to moving the CF card around...

Cheers
Steffen.

A quick search on the net yields a specification called Wireless USB which seems to be what you are after. It was announced in 2004 but does not appear to have hit the market.

See http://www.usb.org/developers/wusb
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/ ... corp_c.htm and
http://www.deviceforge.com/articles/AT9015145687.html

If it comes to pass then I imagine there would be adapters from wired to wireless USB in order to leverage the "2 billion legacy wired USB connections" referred to on the USB website. If that is the case, then the adapters would be almost exactly as you have described in your diagram. But given the paucity of announcements since 2004, I wouldn't hold my breath!

gstark wrote:

ElRonno wrote:Thanks for your cynical approach

No, I'm not being cynical. Please reread my message.

Gary, I was talking about Birddog114's shopping list...

Thanks for all your input.

thaddeus wrote:A quick search on the net yields a specification called Wireless USB which seems to be what you are after.

Whoa!

http://www.usb.org/developers/wusb wrote:Certified Wireless USB performance is targeted at 480Mbps at 3 meters and 110Mbps at 10 meters.

Now that sounds like it.

All we have to do is wait until someone develops it for big bucks and then wait some more until the market is flooded with cheap no name copies.

Ok, I give in! I just ordered myself a USB extension cable... only AU$3, so I'll keep the AU$97 in my pocket until the day WUSB floods the world...

ElRonno wrote:

thaddeus wrote:A quick search on the net yields a specification called Wireless USB which seems to be what you are after.

Whoa!

Whoa is right.

The standard is actually about a year old; the reference Russell provided is actually pre-standard. But one of the questions that the papers don;t answer relates to the issue of whether or not the world needs yet another wireless standard. Given that Wifi and BT are cheap and popular, I think that there will be more than a little resistance to yet another standard, once this does hit the marketplace.

If it ever does: while we're just starting to see a few prototypes of mainly high end (and high value) products using this technology, real production of even the high end gear is still not due until the middle of next year.

By the time this gets to a consumer level, the D70s will be out of production, as will the D2 range of cameras.

Going back to what I said earlier, please note my comments that, somewhere along the line there needs to be software - in this case embedded firmware - that will try to simplify the all of the processes involved.

That takes time, and money. Lots of it.

That's why it's not here.

And as Russell said, don't hold your breath.

http://www.usb.org/developers/wusb wrote:Certified Wireless USB performance is targeted at 480Mbps at 3 meters and 110Mbps at 10 meters.

Now that sounds like it.

Actually, it sounds like what's called vapourware.

I see new trechnology announcements on a pretty well daily basis, as I believe does Birddog. This is not something that I've not heard of.

But hearing of this stuff doesn't make it real.

I'm still waiting to see electronic paper.

3D TV.

And the paperless office. Hell, that one was announced way back in the 70s!

Ok, I give in! I just ordered myself a USB extension cable... only AU$3, so I'll keep the AU$97 in my pocket until the day WUSB floods the world...

A commendable decision, but you're still restricted to the USB speeds of the D70.

As you say you're using NCC, then that's fine; you have little choice. And of course it's fine to, within that context, download your images directly.

But beyond that, if you're wanting to transfer images in bulk from your PC, a card reader will still be the better alternative.

And getting back to Thanh's comments, while I cannot speak on his behalf, I don't believe he was being overly cynical either; as a general observation, his advice that you would be better off investing in a CF card still holds true.

thaddeus wrote:If it comes to pass then I imagine there would be adapters from wired to wireless USB in order to leverage the "2 billion legacy wired USB connections" referred to on the USB website.

Perhaps, but I don't see them as being used within the context of legacy connections. Implicit within that statement - which I suspect is framed with a view to raising venture capital - is the suggestion that users will go rushing out and buy these devices, and throwing their lagacy usb cables into the trash as a result.

Sorry, but I don't buy that: you'll need a hub/AP as a central transmitter, and a sister transceiver for each and every unit that you're wanting to connect in this manner.

Looking at my desktop pc, I have a half dozen USB devices connected already, and they're all working just perfectly with wires. Yes, the wires are a real PITA, and I'm a technology junkie and take up this sort of thing very early in its life cycle, but I do ot see this as being something that will assume a whole lot of existing connections.

Yes, if it takes off - and that's a bloody big if - it will be used for connecting devices that we will acquire in the future.

Another pointer to the success (or lack of) that this technology will enjoy is for us to look at the Apple Mac, which tends to push the envelope in terms of what's going to be popular down the pipeline. The Mac had USB back in ... 1998? ... and Firewire sometime later, but both well before the PC even thought of adopting them; it's only been in the last year or three that this technology has started to gain general popularity.

Apple similarly pioneered the removal of floppy drives and the inclusion of optical drives, which is now occurring more frequently in pcs too.

Let's say that there was a three to four year lag between adoption by the Mac and the technology's general acceptance in the community, but the Mac does not yet have this capability, to my knowledge. Where does that place this technology?

gstark wrote:But beyond that, if you're wanting to transfer images in bulk from your PC, a card reader will still be the better alternative

In case of bulk transfer that is absolutely true. For that purpose I've got a fast 2GB CF card and a card reader.

My purpose for this thread is different. For studio still life fotography it's very usefull to be able to view every single picture on screen, finetune the setup or lighting, view another attempt and so on.

Oh, there is more to dream about. Studio flash units that I can control from my pc. Or built some servos into my tripod. Hmmm, and remote controlled motorzoom.....

The only problem with what you wish for is that you're trying to compete against the market forces of a piece of wire.
Most people will be very happy with a wire connection.
The limited requirement for a generic wireless USB connection will always put it out of the price limit that you're prepared to pay.
You don't just need the transmit/receive capacity, you also need the hosting capability.
Which is why the pictured item is so expensive.
And why marketing works the way that it does...

ElRonno wrote:My purpose for this thread is different. For studio still life fotography it's very usefull to be able to view every single picture on screen, finetune the setup or lighting, view another attempt and so on.

Yep.

And in a studio, where you already have wires running to every flash unit, and to your powered background roller, the umbilical cord to the camera is merely a minor annoyance.

And for a tabletop setup, a wireless link, while convenient, won't be likely to be cost effective, nor will it offer any improvement in productivity. More likely a decrease will ensue, as your data tranfer rates will be slower than by wire due to the overhead inherent in wireless transfer.

As I said in my first response: this is possible, today. Hardware cost is around Au$1K, and to save a few sheckles - or perhaps let you think that you can - you're free to write your own interface.

While the CF would be my starting point, the Nikon API is somewhat difficult to obtain if you're not an established software house, and even then, to my knowledge it does not yet support dotnet, which specifically then excludes the CF as your platform.

That means that you need to reverse engineer the interface to the camera.

Or simply write a custom FTP client, as I also suggested in my original response.

Oh, there is more to dream about. Studio flash units that I can control from my pc. Or built some servos into my tripod. Hmmm, and remote controlled motorzoom.....

Not sure about the flash, but the remote for the camera's motion is very old hat. Been around for years. How deep are your pockets?

whiz wrote:The only problem with what you wish for is that you're trying to compete against the market forces of a piece of wire.

Exactly.

Not sure about the flash, but the remote for the camera's motion is very old hat. Been around for years. How deep are your pockets?

Aussie $100!!!!!!!!

gstark wrote:

whiz wrote:The only problem with what you wish for is that you're trying to compete against the market forces of a piece of wire.

Exactly.

I disagree: if you followed that logic, we wouldn't have wireless LANs, etc.

Personally, I think wireless USB won't come to pass simply because there are two close alternatives: bluetooth and wifi.

thaddeus wrote:

gstark wrote:

whiz wrote:The only problem with what you wish for is that you're trying to compete against the market forces of a piece of wire.

Exactly.

I disagree: if you followed that logic, we wouldn't have wireless LANs, etc.

Personally, I think wireless USB won't come to pass simply because there are two close alternatives: bluetooth and wifi.

And WiFi will still get a lot faster, it enjoys a far greater transmission coverage than that proposed for UWB, it's super cheap now, and already enjoys a very strong customer base which provides an upgrade path.

My extension cord has arrived.

I'll keep dreaming about the rest.

Let me spend the remaining AU$97 on drinks for you guys. Bartender, drinks on me for the whole thread.

ElRonno wrote:My extension cord has arrived.

I'll keep dreaming about the rest.

Let me spend the remaining AU$97 on drinks for you guys. Bartender, drinks on me for the whole thread.

Thanks ElRonno - mine's a whisky and soda. Hope you enjoy it!

Cheers

thaddeus wrote:

gstark wrote:

whiz wrote:The only problem with what you wish for is that you're trying to compete against the market forces of a piece of wire.

Exactly.

I disagree: if you followed that logic, we wouldn't have wireless LANs, etc.

Personally, I think wireless USB won't come to pass simply because there are two close alternatives: bluetooth and wifi.

Nope.
Wireless Lans have smarts. Network cards have smarts.
The Connecting bits are dumb in both counts.
There is no comparing a dumb bit of cable, ie a USB cable with something that requires computational power of any sort.

Totally agree with your second statement though.
My house has been running Cisco Aironet wireless since October 2000.